Safe Sex and Sex Related Discussions in Thailand

[Chill Out]

Frenchy is right. Good advice. It's your first time having sex and using a hooker, you need someone to hold your hand, so to speak, and Giotto could do that.

Just disregard the last line, wait a few decades before you try Eden.

[NicFrenchy]

I'm a virgin looking to possibly lose it in Bangkok. Not so much HIV, but the prospect of getting herpes is what is giving me doubts though. I read that 60% of people in the US have HSV-1. If the rate is that high in the US then just about every one of these working girls in Bangkok must be infected with either HSV1 or HSV2. Is that probably right? And if all it takes is skin contact, even with a condom, what do I do? Is herpes part of the admission price to the world of prostitution? This might sound silly but I've been thinking about buying some antiseptic, or iodine and just dousing my whole groin right after sex. When you're done laughing at this post please give your advice.

Best piece of Advice:

Come to Bangkok.

Book at Livingstone Lodge (Soi 33)

Talk with Giotto or his Wife.

They will set you up for the night with a girl from the Sports bar.

The girl will know your situation and will be willing to help you anyway she can.

Beats going to Cowboy, Nana or some MP.

For your first time, take it slow. Then the next day, get ready for the real raunchy stuff and try the EDEN CLUB

[Run Mann]

I'm a virgin looking to possibly lose it in Bangkok. Not so much HIV, but the prospect of getting herpes is what is giving me doubts though. I read that 60% of people in the US have HSV-1. If the rate is that high in the US then just about every one of these working girls in Bangkok must be infected with either HSV1 or HSV2. Is that probably right? And if all it takes is skin contact, even with a condom, what do I do? Is herpes part of the admission price to the world of prostitution? This might sound silly but I've been thinking about buying some antiseptic, or iodine and just dousing my whole groin right after sex. When you're done laughing at this post please give your advice.

How old are you Dan?

[Dan Brody]

I'm a virgin looking to possibly lose it in Bangkok. Not so much HIV, but the prospect of getting herpes is what is giving me doubts though. I read that 60% of people in the US have HSV-1. If the rate is that high in the US then just about every one of these working girls in Bangkok must be infected with either HSV1 or HSV2. Is that probably right? And if all it takes is skin contact, even with a condom, what do I do? Is herpes part of the admission price to the world of prostitution? This might sound silly but I've been thinking about buying some antiseptic, or iodine and just dousing my whole groin right after sex. When you're done laughing at this post please give your advice.

[Wolvenvacht]

Bioengineers at the Uiversity of Utah School of Engineering have developed a molecular condom that women can use.

This sounds too good to be true and a quick Google search failed to find any scienific reports or trials. Only commercial sites showed up, some going back to 2009 even. So it does not seem to be that new: how come it is not better known? I advise caution.

[John Dough]

http://contraception-std.com/operati...ns-English.htm

Silver Gel injected into the male urethra which can be called "Urethral Condom" enable to prevent various STDs including AIDS with its physical blocking wall effect and germicidal effect like solid condoms. However, in contrast with the ordinary condom the urethral condom concentrates its protection on the urethral mucous which is the sole invading route for germs unless there is scars on the skin of the penis. Furthermore, in contrast with the ordinary condom, the urethral condom elevates sexual feelings rather than lowering by lubricity of the silver gel and eliminates worries for being torn or taken off during coitus like condoms.

Furthermore, it has been known that silver as metal has a wide range of germicidal effects. It has been found that silver dispersed in water as very fine particles, which is called "coloidal silver" or "nano-silver", is more effective as a germicide. This nano-silver is proved to eradicate more than 650 germs and viruses in a few minutes without any effects to the human body. Recently it has been possible to manufacture nano-silver which has particle sizes of 2-15nm and concentrations of 5-20ppm by electrolysis in distilled water with silver eletrodes of more than 99. 99% in purity. Moreover, in contrast with other chemical germicides, nano-silver is non-irritant to the extremely sensitive mucous membrane in the male urethra. Therefore, nano-silver is the most suitable germicide to be added into the lubricating gel for STD / AIDS prevention due to its wide germicidal effects and non-irritability.

[John Dough]

Bioengineers at the University of Utah School of Engineering have developed a molecular condom that women can use. Now every one can enjoy intimate contact naturally without the risk of pregnancy and diseases.

http://www.newlifewoman.com/apps/web...s/show/2169483

Liquid contraception:get rid of traditional "condom use" (which for some people reduces pleasure) contraceptive pills that may have side effects. No more wories about condom breaking.

http://www.newlifewoman.com/apps/web...s/show/2169533

A kind of water-soluble, tasteless, transparent liquid microbial agents paste contains active ingredient: essien octoxynal (benzene together. Abbreviation O. 9) , is the main components that destroys HIV virus, also kill various STDS pathogens, including herpes simplex virus, gonorrhea diplococcus, syphilis helicoid, chlamydia and human sperm, etc. According to BZK (benzene pierced chloride) It Also prevents pregnancy and stop the spread of sexually transmitedd diseases by distroying cause of the infection.

http://contraception-std.com/index-1-English.htm

An amazing / surprising and epoch-making lubricating gel has been developed, which can be used for both prevention of all kinds of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) including AIDS and contraception. This lubricating gel injected into the vagina can be called Liquid Female Condom (Liquid Femidom) as it acts just like a rubber female condom (Femidom) in the roles of contraception and STD-prevention. It can be also used to protect against crab lice and ascariasis which cannot be protected by the rubber condom.

[Wolvenvacht]

PinkPearl,

I grant you that your 7 step program for safe sex is not bad and may even be equal in risk as having casual sex with a condom, but please explain me how to put your plan in motion when I have taken a fancy to barfine an agogo-girl from Soi Cowboy?

To me your system seems as realistic and practical as abstinence as a way to avoid teenage pregnancies.

[PinkPearl]

If you go through the trouble of testing each and every girl first, and you get yourself tested each time as well, then you are both much safer. I'll give you that.

That would be advisable for guys who are going to BB P4P TGs, especially if they are not taking other precautions and don't have advantages like circumcision.

It would be practical for those staying a brief time in Thailand, say one week, to get the lady they are going to rawdog it with tested for STDs, at least HIV anyway, if they are quite happy sticking to only one lady for the trip, or at least only one to forgoe the rubber with for vaginal penetration.

If that one girl also stayed with him the whole time, then he could guarantee she hadn't been booming anyone else or catching any STDs from them while he was in LOS.

For those staying in the Kingdom a number of months or permanently, similar principles apply. What I'll consider is BBing two TGs and have them STD tested monthly, but engage in other sexual activities (DFK, BBBJ, etc) whenever desirious of more variety.

Testing would be impractical if a guy intends to BB a lot of ladies in a short time frame, say 10 women in 3 days. If trustworthy home HIV self tests, like a 20 minute oral swab, were legal & available, it might be another story.

This was the Wolven post I was referring to:

I believe this was addressed earlier, such as in post # 1769.

[Chill Out]

If you go through the trouble of testing each and every girl first, and you get yourself tested each time as well, then you are both much safer. I'll give you that.

This was the Wolven post I was referring to:

I am quite sure that when you practice (1) to (7) bare-back you are still running a much higher risk than following the same (1) to (7) practice combined with using a condom.

You are comparing apples with pears: high risk behavior with condom against lower risk behavior without condom.

It is clear that when comparing like-with-like, use of a condom tremendously lowers the risk.

<snip>

[PinkPearl]

Only in Pinkpearl's world does it make you "as safe". As Wolven has pointed out, you are pretending condom users somehow go out of their way to not get STD tested, choose high mileage girls, etc etc, and so by not doing that you get to be as safe as them. None of this is true of course.

I'm not aware of Wolvenvacht saying anything like that. But you appear to have missed the key point re testing, namely that the pooner is much safer if he has seen the sex worker's recent all negative STD results. Very few hobbyists have any clue of the HIV status of the P4P girls they bang, let alone take them to the hospital to be "checked out". It is plausible that this item alone could put those engaging in BBFS on a level playing field as those who use condoms religiously, perhaps even those who also use them "perfectly" everytime for decades (if such a creature even exists).

"In 2009 blood screened for HIV in Greater Accra, Ghana amounted to 33, 294 units of blood, of which 3. 68 percent was found to be HIV positive. 45 Ghana tests 100 percent of its blood donations, however this is done using only antibody tests. Therefore the window period remains a significant interval, which suggests some units may continue to pass through screening undetected.

"In October 2005, South Africa introduced NAT testing and as a result there were no cases of HIV transmission by blood transfusion reported to the haemovigilance programme, a transfusion surveillance system. 46 47

"The availability of nucleic acid tests (NAT) , which reduces the window period and makes testing much more accurate, helped to support the argument for a change in the ban against MSM donating. These tests have been found to almost eliminate the possibility that HIV infected blood will pass through the testing stage, even in countries with high prevalence. 33"

"If a person receives a blood transfusion with HIV-infected blood, there is a 95 percent risk they will become infected with the virus. 4 However the chances of becoming infected with HIV through a blood transfusion varies between countries depending on the level of safety precautions in place, and there is a notable difference between high and low-income countries. In the UK, the risk is now 1 in 5 million. 5"

http://www.avert.org/blood-safety-hiv.htm

One in 5 million. This gives some idea of the HIV risk in having one act of bareback sex with an individual (aged 17 to 65) who has just had this NAT test & donated blood. Certainly it would be riskier with a FT gogo girl or streetwalker in Bangkok, but the million dollar question is, by how much. Note also that recieving HIV in blood as a donor will almost surely infect you (95 percent of the time, as stated) , whereas one act of BB sex with an infected lady is very unlikely to cause you harm (maybe 1 in 2000 chance of getting HIV). With 2. 79 percent of FSW in Thailand being HIV positive, how many times lower would that figure be for a girl who has just tested negative for NAT & STDs? Ten times? Fifty? A hundred? A thousand? Now factor that into Wolven's figures and see which is safer, using a condom with a random untested lady, or a circumcised barebacker with a TG who has just tested negative for STDs? The answer might surprise you, even with condom failure rates below 5 and approaching zero percent.

I'm aware of those stats but I question them because if they were true I would have 20 babies by now, and so would many of my friends.

It wouldn't be unusual for friends to keep secrets from each other re pregnancies & the termination of such via abortions and other means. Likewise a prostitute may not divulge this info to a client, if he happened to still be around at the time pregnancy was known to have occurred, if she even ever saw him again after they had sex together.

Moreover some people are sterile and you have to understand that everyone's results will not be the same as your experience. Unlike you, who claims to have discovered the secrets to condoms never failing, people in the real world, even those who use condoms consistently and correctly, experience them slipping, sliding off and breaking.

"Like my married friends, who didn't want children ever, and only used condoms. As the girl would get too fat on the pill. 2 kids in the next 4 years."

Anyway, let's assume they are true, what you are saying is that condoms are 2-3% ineffective, and 97-98% effective. You then use those stats (2% vs 98% eg a 49x difference) to not use them.

In the overall picture, this stat is only one of many reasons why I dislike condoms and prefer not to use a plastic baggie. I've found other ways besides latex to practice safe sex and have bareback sex at the same time. Condoms are not the only way to increase safety when having sex with another. Nor are they the best way.

"The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) , including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) , are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner."

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

Nothing is said about plastic baggies there. Moreover the remark about abstinence is relevant in that if a person abstained enough, BBFS plus abstinence would equal a greater measure of safety than condom sex (CFS). For example a guy having condomless sex once a month will be safer than those doing it every day with condoms. Frankly, BTW, a lot of guys would rather be wanked and / or get other (lower than CFS risk) BB services like DFK, BLS & a BBBJ than try to have sex with a piece of plastic.

In other words, you are using the same old "seat belts kill the passenger 2% of the time and save their life only 98% of the time, so I won't use them, instead I'll use more effective methods I read about on anti-seat-belts blogs, such as duct-taping a pillow to my steering wheel."

My 7 steps to safer sex aren't taping a "pillow to the steering wheel". Nor are the "effective methods" in those 7 steps something I "read about on anti (condom) blogs". They are from scientific research studies, government, pro condom, and pro safe sex sources, for the most part.

If it were just your life, I would say do whatever you want. But in bareback sex, you put other people's lives at risk. Eg the girls. Many of them do not know any better and it's a shame to see otherwise smart foreign men try any logical loophole in the book to rationalize their stupid behavior.

Driving a car or motorcycle puts lives at risk. Having sex, period, with or without a condom, puts "people's lives" (or rather health) at risk. There is a whole range of risks from faithful monogamy between uninfected partners to receptive BB anal with a known HIV & STD infected heroin injecter not taking ARV meds who has a high viral load. Putting into practice the 7 steps I recommend for safer sex will make both those engaging in BBFS and boring plastic baggie sex much safer.

[PinkPearl]

condom use is still significantly better than circumcision: using a condom gives you as much chance to catch hiv in 60 years of mongering as someone being circumcised and having unprotected sex in 20 years.

i can see your pov on condom sex being "significantly better" from a safety perspective. evidently you give safety a higher priority than i do, since i feel quite comfortable with your figures for circumcised unprotected sex relative to condom use. to me it is not a significant enough loss in safety to warrant sacrificing decades or a lifetime of higher quality sex.

moreover, with the rest of the 7 safety protocols i recommend i believe one practicing bbfs with p4p tgs will be safer from hiv than the vast majority of rubber (plastic baggie) advocates who frequent the same. factor in recent std testing alone and i'd suggest that ups the safety level by at least 5 times over those who don't test their p4p partner, which is just about everyone engaging in p4p.

though if we were living back in the 1980's, or bareback sex was many times more dangerous than using a condom, then i could see myself choosing a higher safety mo (modus operandi) instead.

also i understand that, for various reasons, some guys have to opt for more safety as, for example, they may have a wife or gf waiting them back home after their pooning in los. by employing my 7 safety measures, condom using guys with so's can make themselves almost immune to hiv.

btw in other areas of my behaviour i exercise high safety standards, as in, for example, avoiding stress, illicit drugs & cigarette fumes, not driving a car or motorbike in bkk, not being overweight or frequenting fast food joints. neither am i climbing everest, engaging in extreme sports, high speed driving or sky diving, which i see no point in doing & have no interest in, unlike sex. nor am i employed as a soldier in afghanistan, a cop, fireman, or other high risk profession.

so that's the big picture as in not only safety re sex but safety re all behaviours one engages in as a whole.

[NicFrenchy]

I'm aware of those stats but I question them because if they were true I would have 20 babies by now

So I take it you're not very Sexually Active? LOL

[Chill Out]

Quite the opposite from saying "damn the risks", I have been pointing out ways (7 steps) to reduce the risks of BBFS, like circumcision, STD testing & not finishing inside a girl. Such ways can make one engaging in BBFS as safe as a "perfect" condom user, such as you allege to be.

Only in Pinkpearl's world does it make you "as safe". As Wolven has pointed out, you are pretending condom users somehow go out of their way to not get STD tested, choose high mileage girls, etc etc, and so by not doing that you get to be as safe as them. None of this is true of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom

The truth is the stats I quote claim that even "perfect" condom use, namely correct and consistent use of condoms, results in 2 to 3% of couples having an unwanted pregnancy per year. Ruling out miracle or virgin births, that means sperm is getting in. If it were STD or HIV infected sperm, you can imagine the consequences.

I'm aware of those stats but I question them because if they were true I would have 20 babies by now, and so would many of my friends.

Anyway, let's assume they are true, what you are saying is that condoms are 2-3% ineffective, and 97-98% effective. You then use those stats (2% vs 98% eg a 49x difference) to not use them.

In other words, you are using the same old "seat belts kill the passenger 2% of the time and save their life only 98% of the time, so I won't use them, instead I'll use more effective methods I read about on anti-seat-belts blogs, such as duct-taping a pillow to my steering wheel."

If it were just your life, I would say do whatever you want. But in bareback sex, you put other people's lives at risk - eg the girls. Many of them do not know any better and it's a shame to see otherwise smart foreign men try any logical loophole in the book to rationalize their stupid behavior.

[PinkPearl]

That's really what it's all about for you. The feeling.

Is there some other reason you have sex? Not many condom users would deny that it feels better without one. But how would one know if they've never tried it.

Then man up and admit that this is what you want (and damn the risks) , and stop trying to justify it in other ways.

Quite the opposite from saying "damn the risks", I have been pointing out ways (7 steps) to reduce the risks of BBFS, like circumcision, STD testing & not finishing inside a girl. Such ways can make one engaging in BBFS as safe as a "perfect" condom user, such as you allege to be.

Condoms are very strong and will not break once you know what you are doing.

Have you done scientific studies on this or just speak from your alleged & extremely limited personal experience?

"Condoms may slip off the penis after ejaculation, [59] break due to improper application or physical damage (such as tears caused when opening the package) , or break or slip due to latex degradation (typically from usage past the expiration date, improper storage, or exposure to oils). The rate of breakage is between 0. 4% and 2. 3, while the rate of slippage is between 0. 6% and 1. 3. [51] Even if no breakage or slippage is observed. 1–2% of women will test positive for semen residue after intercourse with a condom. [60][61]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom

Your stats do not mean anything except that some people do not use condoms correctly,

The truth is the stats I quote claim that even "perfect" condom use, namely correct and consistent use of condoms, results in 2 to 3% of couples having an unwanted pregnancy per year. Ruling out miracle or virgin births, that means sperm is getting in. If it were STD or HIV infected sperm, you can imagine the consequences.

"Most probably related to the condom's efficiency in preventing the transmission HIV / AIDS and STD's is its efficiency in preventing pregnancy. The WHO explains that perfect use of the condom does not prevent pregnancy all the time. 'Estimated pregnancy rates during perfect use of condoms, that is for those who report using the method exactly as it should be used (correctly) and at every act of intercourse (consistently) , is 3 percent at 12 months'[40].""

"Indeed, pregnancy in spite of condom use is well documented, with the Pearl index placed at around 15 failures per 100 women years within the first year of use. [42] If pregnancy may occur in spite of condom use, wouldn't it be only logical to conclude that the condom also allows transmission of HIV and STD's, given that the disease-causing organisms may be present with the sperm cells, in the seminal fluid, and even elsewhere, such as on skin surfaces not covered by the condom? Moreover, one must consider that a woman can become pregnant only during her fertile days (approximately 5-8 days in a cycle, taking into account the sperm's lifespan inside her body) , while the HIV and STD's may be transmitted on any day."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/po...html#Pregnancy

Of course not. It's just like getting the flu.

Though thousands die annually from the flu, HIV is probably worse to get but not likely to kill you as quickly, if at all.

"A 20-year-old, HIV-infected individual on treatment who is living in the USA or Canada can reasonably expect to live into his or her early 70s, which is slightly lower than the USA general average of 78 years, according to a study presented at CROI 2012. However, there were notable differences in life expectancy depending on several factors, including transmission group, race and baseline CD4+ count."

http://www.thebodypro.com/content/66...i.html?ic=7001

The Canadian government offers support to HIV positive parents in making babies, although there is still a risk of the child getting HIV:

"Today, in the HAART (Highly active antiretroviral treatment) era, HIV positive people are living longer, healthier lives and the risk of a child contracting HIV has been reduced to below 1 percent, leading many to consider having children."

http://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/42794.html